With all due respect, Nova, Miss CA did give an honest answer. Her answer, as it applied to the belief she held at the time of question, was not deceptive in any way, shape or form.
She was hit with a 'To thy own self be true' moment and in the eyes of many people, some of whom hold the opposing belief, she passed the test. There is no honest way, or reason, for her belief to be determined as robotic.
My own belief on same-sex marriage doesn't call for me to be true to myself in the way that her belief does. I view this as a strictly secular issue and hold a rather simplistic belief: Tax equality = Rights equality.
But then....this is old news to Massachusetts folks. The right to marry is the right to marry for all. The world didn't end and Satan didn't spring forth from the bowels of the earth.
The heroes of the cause then were not the likes of Perez Hilton but unknown Clerks of a dozen or so cities & towns across Massachusetts. Who, despite being threatened with arrest by Gov. Romney, continued to abide by the law and not ask discriminating questions at the time of license application by couples.
The City Clerk of the city I reside in was one of those Clerks. I know he is married, has children and a devote Catholic. Have no idea what his personal beliefs are on same-sex marriage. He stated only that he would accept arrest over discrimination and kept on notarizing.
Capoly, I had to quote your post entirely, not only because it is so well written, but because the Massachusetts' story on this sujbect can never be told too often. (BTW, city clerks attempted to do the same here, but were blocked by our courts, which then led to the supreme court decision, Prop 8, etc.)
Fortunately, my grandchildren live in your great state and so they find nothing remotely unusual, much less surprising, in the fact that Grandpa "Nova" and Grandpa "Mr. Nova" are married in California.
But I think
if we read Miss Cali's remarks in full, we find her not being so much "honest" as trying to straddle the fence in order to win the crown.
She starts out trying to praise "freedom of choice" in this great country of ours and then ends up trying to wrap herself in traditional values ("my family" and that tired, "man and a woman" cliche). Really, she wants to have it both ways.
She could have said "I believe in universal rights for all, even though I personally rely on traditional definitions of marriage." She did not.
She could have said "I believe the Bible rules on this subject, so, no, I don't think equal marriage rights should be extended to all." She did not.
She could have said "'Marriage' has been defined in a certain way for a long time. I'd like to see an extended conversation of pros and cons before we change it." She did not.
I do realize that waffling on controversial questions is an ancient beauty-pageant tradition and shouldn't surprise us in a Miss USA finalist.
But since we all agree that "honesty" is usually a virtue, I'd like to reserve the word for carefully considered candor.
Let's don't pick and choose from a jumble of catch phrases and call
some of them "honest."
(As for my use of the word "robotic," I thought I was being kind, under the circumstances.)
